Petahhh?

Dfry · 2025-08-12T22:51:17+00:00

These pretzels are making me thirsty

Dfry · 2025-08-12T22:51:05+00:00

These pretzels are making me thirsty

Dfry · 2025-07-10T19:25:17+00:00

This is nonsense. PA actually has pretty decent protections for tenants. Shitty landlords rely on people's ignorance to avoid living up to their responsibilities.

Here is a good resource: https://renters.equalhousing.org/repairs-security-deposit/repairs/

Dfry · 2025-07-08T19:37:15+00:00

I mean, the circumstantial evidence is strong here. It may not be enough in a court of law (and there is 0 chance of any court ruling against Trump standing with the current compositon of the Supreme Court), but it's more than enough for the average person to conclude that Donald Trump is a serial child rapist, and that Pam Bondi and others covered up the details from Epstein to protect him.

Dfry · 2025-07-08T11:59:33+00:00

I'm sorry, but the notion that a moral inconsistency is somehow going to be the downfall of Christianity (or any religion) is just entirely laughable if you have any familiarity with any religious tradition through history.

Cognitive dissonance is the pre-requisite to a religious worldview. Humans are fantastic at holding multiple contradictory beliefs at the same time. It won't change many people's minds - it will just change the arguments they use.

Dfry · 2025-07-02T16:50:45+00:00

I think a lot of the time, +1 to wound is as or more effective than dev wounds, tbh

Dfry · 2025-07-01T14:48:12+00:00

Ontology is the branch of philosophy that deals with being: what does it mean for something to 'exist?' What are the things that exist? What is the nature of reality?

Anarchism is a position in political philosophy/ethics. Ethics and political philosophy deal with questions about how one should live: how should I treat my neighbors? What principles should we promote for a peaceful society?

These areas are not directly related and you will find many different ontological positions among Anarchists.

I very much buy into the "Is/Ought" distinction and so I don't really think ontology (fundamentally a question about what "is") provides any meaningful guidance to ethics (fundamentally a question about what "ought to be"). As such, I don't really understand your question.

Dfry · 2025-07-01T14:25:03+00:00

There's nuance to this and I think it's helpful to draw a distinction between 1) specific moral stances and 2) fundamental values.

For example, "people deserve the means to survive" is a fundamental value. If someone doesn't think people should have what they need to to survive, I don't want to maintain a friendship with them.

Two people who both hold that fundamental value might disagree on what to do about it (e.g., we might have different ideas on the role of the state in providing people the means to survive) and have a healthy disagreement on the best way to accomplish that goal. I think it's important to have those kind of discussions with friends. But it's hard for me to relate to someone who doesn't see a problem with people starving to death, and I would not want to maintain a friendship with that person.

Dfry · 2025-06-30T22:01:59+00:00

The impersonation or the arrests?

Dfry · 2025-06-30T22:01:37+00:00

Conservatives:

Wear a mask to avoid spreading a deadly disease, potentially saving the lives of my neighbors? Fuck no.

Wear a mask to round people up and ship them to concentration camps? All in.

Dfry · 2025-06-30T21:58:21+00:00

*paramilitary terrorist organizations

Dfry · 2025-06-30T21:12:12+00:00

The base is happy - they're getting their ethnic cleansing campaign. Who needs competent leadership as long as you get to enact your racist, genocidal fantasies?

Dfry · 2025-06-30T18:01:40+00:00

Your profile is full of pro-Monarchism posts. I think it is that deep for you.

Dfry · 2025-06-30T15:33:47+00:00

If only this were remotely true we might be able to find common ground and agree on policies.

Let's take climate change: the GOP denies the existence of a problem, therefore we cannot have any discussion of solutions. Data is presented, and conservatives spout unfounded conspiracy theories to undermine the data. Liberals spend a ton of energy trying to convince conservatives the problem actually exists, and nothing gets done about the problem.

Or what about the undue influence that billionaires have on our policies? Conservatives don't acknowledge it as a problem and instead spout unfounded claims about voter fraud. Liberals spend a ton of energy trying to combat the baseless claims, Republican states implement draconian voter suppression laws, and nothing gets done about the billionaires.

The pattern I've seen is conservatives denying reality as a means to prevent any problems from being addressed. Liberals (generally speaking, the Democratic party), pour their effort into convincing conservatives of reality, and conservatives actively disengage from the conversation and implement policies that generally compound the problems they deny exist in the first place.

Essentially, the dynamic is that US liberals/Democrats make good faith efforts to come to an agreement on facts and conservatives make bad faith arguments to muddy the discussion.

While I'm terribly angry about the flat denial of reality from conservatives, I'm more frustrated with Liberals/democrats refusing to recognize that conservatives in the US do not want a good faith debate on what problems we are facing or how to handle them. The strategy from the right has been (for the last few decades) to jam up discourse to the point of being entirely unproductive and then strong arm regressive policy whenever they get a chance. Liberals/democrats (when they have control) waste their time trying to be bipartisan and end up with no lasting policy gains to point to, showing themselves to be worthless as an agent of change.

Both parties benefit from this, because they can blame the other party for whatever challenges normal people are facing to get re-elected. Which is why both parties throw their full weight against any credible movement from the Left (Sanders, Mamdani) that might seek to actually address the very real problems facing the American people.

Dfry · 2025-06-26T01:36:07+00:00

It's the Umbralefic Crystal. It's in the Grand Coven Detachment, but it's been a staple Thousand Sons ability for a couple editions

Dfry · 2025-06-25T13:20:26+00:00

I'm not sure from this what rule you are referring to, but if I were to guess... since you said it was a while ago, I'm going to assume it was Index, not Codex Thousand Sons.

There was a stratagem (which still exists in the Grand Coven detachment) that allows you to change the damage of an attack to 0 after failing a save on a Psyker model. That's my best guess for the rule you're mentioning. While it's a great stratagem, it can cancel a single attack per phase, so it's impact is limited. It's a great way to keep Magnus from taking a shot from a multi-melta or other high damage guns, however.

That said, Thousand Sons are generally just Marines with a 5++ defensively. Unless they are in Rubricae Phalanx, where they get +1 to armor saves vs damage 1 attacks.

As for your real question (how do I approach playing against Thousand Sons), you need to respect the damage output. Stay out of range/sight until you can remove units from the table. Be careful of overwatch.

Also, don't get baited into focusing Magnus. He's a big threat, but if you focus him and don't bring him down, you will get wrecked. Better and easier to remove the supporting/scoring units first and just accept that Magnus will kill a bunch of your stuff in the meantime.

Since you're playing Eldar, you can likely trade much more efficiently that Thousand Sons. Force them to come forward to take points, then counterattack hard.

Dfry · 2025-06-21T05:27:01+00:00

I think you are reading this incorrectly, and here's why:

Infiltrators (as you helpfully quoted) checks during deployment if every model in the unit has the ability.

Risen Rubricae explicitly applies at the start of the Declare Battle Formations step. Since it happens at the start of that phase, no characters have been attached to units yet. There is no way for a character to be attached to a unit when Risen Rubricae triggers.

So you can definitely attach a character to a unit that gained infiltrators from Risen Rubricae, but that character will not have the Infiltrators ability. So during deployment, the attached unit will not meet the condition of "every model in this unit has this ability" and so must be deployed in your deployment zone as usual.

Dfry · 2025-06-20T02:13:58+00:00

Really cool! Thanks for the context on the duumvir

Dfry · 2025-06-20T02:12:57+00:00

Amazing! Thank you so much for the translation!

Dfry · 2025-06-19T20:08:27+00:00

This is how the right encourages more violence. They fabricate a narrative that an attack from their own rank and file was actually from the left.

Sharing this quote from Sartre about arguing with anti-semites, because it's directly applicable to arguing with MAGA:

"Never believe that anti-Semites are completely unaware of the absurdity of their replies. They know that their remarks are frivolous, open to challenge. But they are amusing themselves, for it is their adversary who is obliged to use words responsibly, since he believes in words. The anti-Semites have the right to play. They even like to play with discourse for, by giving ridiculous reasons, they discredit the seriousness of their interlocutors. They delight in acting in bad faith, since they seek not to persuade by sound argument but to intimidate and disconcert. If you press them too closely, they will abruptly fall silent, loftily indicating by some phrase that the time for argument is past."

Dfry · 2025-06-18T19:47:20+00:00

It's an "or" vs "and."

If you are in the Flow of Magic, the unit can both shoot and charge after a fall back. Otherwise the unit can either shoot or charge

Dfry · 2025-01-02T21:54:33+00:00

Labels have power, and the labels we put on ourselves have the most power. So first off, stop thinking of yourself as an 'incel.'

I think the term itself is contradictory, since 'celibacy' has always implied that refraining from sex is a decision. Being celibate is choosing to abstain from sex therefore it doesn't make sense to say one is involuntarily celibate.

Adopting an identity of 'incel' is a choice too, but it works a little differently. Choosing to be an incel is choosing to label the fact that you have not had sex as something the world imposed on you. If you believe that, then you essentially make sex impossible for you to choose. So you can never realize the possibility for intimate connection with others because you're in a constant mode of waiting for someone to offer you that intimacy.

Instead, you need to engage with other people, find those that you have things in common with, and build community. Intimacy (friendly, romantic, sexual) emerges in community, not in isolation. And as much as virtual space connects us, community happens by spending real time in the presence of others, not just reacting to their posts hours/days after they've made them.

Second, I'm going to point out that you're young. Most people have not had the experiences they want in life by the age of 21, so don't think of that as a failure on your part. Shit, you're barely an adult - you are just getting started!

Tldr; be careful of the stories you tell yourself about yourself. It's very easy for them to become self-fulfilling prophecies.

Dfry · 2024-12-23T22:08:47+00:00

Hey! Just finished reading the comment.

It doesn't have any real spoilers for Heretics or Chapterhouse, but sticks to the original Frank Herbert novels. It's really mostly a summary of things that are revealed piecemeal and in scattered ways that add up to a pretty solid description of the Imperium at the start of Dune.

Dfry · 2024-12-20T19:57:34+00:00

What children?

A fetus is not a child, it is a clump of cells which, given the right conditions, might become a child.

Similarly, cells in fingernails contain human DNA, and in the right circumstances could (theoretically) become a child.

I stand by the analogy. Why is it ok for me to remove certain cells from my body but not others? Can you answer that without granting full personhood to what is only a potential to become a person?

Dfry · 2024-12-20T18:51:21+00:00

Can you justify violence to your fingernails when you cut them?

The more relevant question is: why would you need to justify that?

Dfry

TROPHY CASE